5 ms·

Yeah, I've yet to hear of NK sending submarines to tap undersea cables or storing essentially all internet traffic for future decryption efforts. Their little s

Yeah, I've yet to hear of NK sending submarines to tap undersea cables or storing essentially all internet traffic for future decryption efforts. Their little spy OS seems pretty quaint in comparison.

MaxLeiter 4y ago
I expect the Five Eyes to have that level of sophistication
- jacquesm 4y ago
  No need to tap any cables if you're the OEM for the gear at the endpoints.
  - ZoomerCretin 4y ago
    This is probably the real reason why Chinese networking equipment was banned in the US and other Five Eyes countries.
    - dj_mc_merlin 4y ago
      This was the stated reason too, at least here in Europe. National security, which is a polite way of saying the Chinese would tap them. Which they definitely would, since we would too in their position.
      - ZoomerCretin 4y ago
        No, I meant that using Chinese networking equipment was banned because it wouldn't have a Five Eyes backdoor.
- erdos4d 4y ago
  Yeah, that's kinda what I was saying, they definitely do:)
dylan604 4y ago
Not sure why this is being down voted as it is a true story. The underwater recording unit was on display in the Kremlin (is it still?) with a "Made in USA" plaque attached for all to see. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/intelligence-coup-how-one-us-nuclear-submarine-tapped-russian-undersea-cables-159086 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/intelligence-coup-how...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago
  The cable this sub tapped was the line between Kamchatka and Vladivostok. Both sound a bit like Nantucket, but really aren't in Massachusetts or any other US state. This thread started with "track and monitor its citizens" and continued "If you think that’s wild, ...", the latter of which was going for the tu quoque, i. e. "the US is worse than North Korea", for which the example is useless. It would work well in supporting the argument that the NSA (or CIA) had some rather sophisticated technology all the way back in the 80s, at least compared to North Korea, which, frankly, wouldn't be very surprising but at least somewhat sane, which makes it a rather sad commentary on the state of discourse that there is zero doubt which argument the parent comment was going for.
  - More-nitors 4y ago
    ditto this. why even send subs when you can just subpoena local ISPs? the subs can't be remotely related to US citizens
    - kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
      One of their workarounds for violating the constitution is to route domestic traffic out of country so that it is classified as "foreign" and fair game for collection.
      - dylan604 4y ago
wwweston 4y ago
"Wait 'til you hear about people who record conversations the park! The spook bouncing lasers off the window of your home & office to reconstruct audio of your conversations will seem quaint by comparison." In other words: most of the proper sense of proportion here is set by what reasonable expectations of privacy are. I can certainly appreciate the merits of a communication channel that features secure messages in transit. But I don't expect that by default. Privacy expectations should be set by contract or statute. On the other hand, I definitely expect that conversations in my residence or data on my device should be private by default. Eavesdropping is a whole different category from intrusion, even if you find both unpleasant.

MaxLeiter 4y ago

I expect the Five Eyes to have that level of sophistication

jacquesm 4y ago
No need to tap any cables if you're the OEM for the gear at the endpoints.
- ZoomerCretin 4y ago
  This is probably the real reason why Chinese networking equipment was banned in the US and other Five Eyes countries.
  - dj_mc_merlin 4y ago
    This was the stated reason too, at least here in Europe. National security, which is a polite way of saying the Chinese would tap them. Which they definitely would, since we would too in their position.
    - ZoomerCretin 4y ago
      No, I meant that using Chinese networking equipment was banned because it wouldn't have a Five Eyes backdoor.
erdos4d 4y ago
Yeah, that's kinda what I was saying, they definitely do:)

dylan604 4y ago

Not sure why this is being down voted as it is a true story. The underwater recording unit was on display in the Kremlin (is it still?) with a "Made in USA" plaque attached for all to see. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/intelligence-coup-how-one-us-nuclear-submarine-tapped-russian-undersea-cables-159086 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/intelligence-coup-how...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago
The cable this sub tapped was the line between Kamchatka and Vladivostok. Both sound a bit like Nantucket, but really aren't in Massachusetts or any other US state. This thread started with "track and monitor its citizens" and continued "If you think that’s wild, ...", the latter of which was going for the tu quoque, i. e. "the US is worse than North Korea", for which the example is useless. It would work well in supporting the argument that the NSA (or CIA) had some rather sophisticated technology all the way back in the 80s, at least compared to North Korea, which, frankly, wouldn't be very surprising but at least somewhat sane, which makes it a rather sad commentary on the state of discourse that there is zero doubt which argument the parent comment was going for.
- More-nitors 4y ago
  ditto this. why even send subs when you can just subpoena local ISPs? the subs can't be remotely related to US citizens
  - kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
    One of their workarounds for violating the constitution is to route domestic traffic out of country so that it is classified as "foreign" and fair game for collection.
    - dylan604 4y ago

wwweston 4y ago

"Wait 'til you hear about people who record conversations the park! The spook bouncing lasers off the window of your home & office to reconstruct audio of your conversations will seem quaint by comparison." In other words: most of the proper sense of proportion here is set by what reasonable expectations of privacy are. I can certainly appreciate the merits of a communication channel that features secure messages in transit. But I don't expect that by default. Privacy expectations should be set by contract or statute. On the other hand, I definitely expect that conversations in my residence or data on my device should be private by default. Eavesdropping is a whole different category from intrusion, even if you find both unpleasant.